Bad Habits Catch Up with Geraldine Ferraro

March 16th, 2008

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.” — 1984 Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee, Geraldine Ferraro.”

It would be gallant to remember Democrat Geraldine Ferraro as the first woman to have a chance to become vice-president, but that would represent noble hyperbole. She was the running mate of former Vice-President Walter Mondale as he tried to prevent President Ronald Reagan and Vice-President George H. W. Bush from election to a second term in 1984.

Mondale and Ferraro never really had a chance. The memory of the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter was too fresh in everyone’s mind, and the conviction that because of Reagan it was “morning America” again for the Democrats to have any realistic prospect for victory in that election cycle. The Mondale-Ferraro ticket was crushed in just about everyone way possible. The pair lost the popular vote 58.8% to 40.6% and the Electoral College by an astounding 525-13. Mondale and Ferraro only carried Mondale’s home state of Minnesota. Even there, Mondale squeaked by 49.7% to 49.5% in the popular vote. A difference of 0.2% in the popular vote in Minnesota kept Reagan and Bush from earning 100% of the Electoral College vote.

Indeed, the challenge of facing so formidable a candidate as Reagan was one of the reasons that a Congress person  from New York was pulled from obscurity and put on the ticket. By boldly selecting Ferraro, Mondale hoped to secure a greater fraction of the female vote. Such an expectation was a little patronizing, but desperation was in order. In retrospect, it is hard to determine whether Ferraro helped or hurt Mondale’s prospects. Mondale was destined to loose with whatever vice-presidential candidate ran with him. Ferraro ran for office credibly despite the fact that her finances  where a source of controversy.

Now in public campaign speech, it is acceptable to say that a particular vice-presidential candidate was chosen to geographically or ideologically balance a ticket. However, it is not good form to say out loud that a candidate was picked because of gender or race. In 1984, it would have be declasse to have publicly argued that Ferraro was only selected because she was a woman. The history of gender and race discrimination make such observations uncomfortable. Though it might have been impolite to observe that she was selected for her gender two decades ago, she concedes that herself now.

Unfortunately, the Democrat Party has fallen into the habit of worrying about group rather than individual representation. This practice of identity politics accustoms people to looking at race or gender first when evaluating an individual. Republicans, in order to fight this identity politics, have been trained to never, never make racial or gender observations. Doing so brings the entire weight of the mainstream media down on the Republican. To make a racial observation for a Republican plays into the media’s perception of Republicans as harboring latent racist and misogynistic dispositions.

Geraldine Ferraro is not even close to being racist. However, when she suggested that Senator Barrack Obama is leading in the Democratic primary contest because he is black, the cauldron of identity politics stirred up in her party forced her to step down from the Hillary Clinton campaign. It is a little ironic that a political party that embraces affirmative action, where race and gender are specifically used in the selection process for school admissions or hiring, are so sensitive to Ferraro’s observation that race played a role in Obama’s recent electoral success.

Those who rise to the most prominent and conspicuous positions, like Senators Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, do so on the basis of a complex combination of talent, work, education, family, cultural heritage, and no small measure of good fortune. Race and gender further influence the rise of different individuals. Given the history of racial and gender discrimination, it is better that the role of such factors remain publicly unexamined by politicians.

It is indeed a welcome outcome that a black man and a female can be serious contenders for the presidency, however, ugly identity politics may ultimately decide who the Democratic nominee is. Is it unbecoming to confess to a small feeling of schadenfreude at the discomfort as a consequence of identity politics of those who have exploited it so mercilessly in the past?

Posted in Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

The Right to Homeschool

March 9th, 2008

The Amish are a convenient group to have around. They are, by their very nature, non-threatening . The Amish are a small, pacifist religous denomination that generally wishes to be left alone to practice their simple lifestyle as dictated by their religious beliefs. Sometimes restrictions on religious practices as imposed by the state are born out of a fear of unconventional religious groups. Without this fear, the dispensation granted the Amish under the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment can be applied to all religious groups.

In 1972, the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder ruled that the Amish could pull their children from public schools after the age of 14 and continue their vocational education at home despite Wisconsin law requiring school attendance untill 16. The Court conceded that the state retains a legitimate interest insuring that children are appropriately educated. However, this interest must be balanced against, “fundamental rights, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children.”

The Amish had demonstrated in the court record that the Wisconsin requirement conflicted with the Amish’s religious precepts and that the exercise of these rights would not “not impair the physical or mental health of the child, or result in an inability to be self-supporting or to discharge the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, or in any other way materially detract from the welfare of society.” In essence, given a conflict between religious practice and state regulation, reasonable accommodation should be made for religious practice.

We are now face with a new case in California involving homeschooling. According a State Court of Appeal, students must be enrolled in public schools “unless (1) the child is enrolled in a private full-time day school and actually attends that private school, (2) the child is tutored by a person holding a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught.” Hence, interested parents who are not credentialed do not have the right to educate their children at home.

The facts of this case are somewhat different from the Wisconsin v. Yoder case. There is no specific religious group being discriminated against, but it is clear that one of the primary motivations of many homeschoolers is to raise children with values not always encouraged in public schools. To be consisten with Wisconsin v. Yoder, it would seem that the free exercise clause would protect homeschooling parents. Of course, the state as explained in Wisconsin v. Yoder does have a real interest in insuring that students adequately educated,, and the quality of teachers is certainly relevant to this question. However, empirical evidence shows that homeschooled students perform better than their public school counterparts. Hence, the real state interest appears to be to maintain the public school monopoly rather than the proper education of children.

It is not likely that this particular case will stand further legal scrutiny. After all, California Courts are notorious for getting it wrong. Moreover, the politics works in favor of homeschoolers. Even the majority of parents who elect to send their children to public schools, do not appreciate being told that they do not have discretion on how to educate their children.

Attuned to this popular sentiment, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has said that “Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children’s education… This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts, and if the courts don’t protect parents’ rights then, as elected officials, we will.” California could simply change the law to specifically allow homeschooling by parents.

The National Education Association and other lobbyists on behalf of the public school monopolies would be best not to fight the political inclination to allow home schooling. Homeschooling is always going to be the choice of only a small minority. It takes too much sacrifice on the part of modern families for homeschooling to seriously affect public school attendance. However, making too much of issue of this will cause unflattering attention to be paid to how poorly public schools do in comparison to parental amateurs.

Posted in Education, Law | No Comments »

Buckley’s Gone

February 28th, 2008

Some people are bred to be Conservatives, with Conservatism in their mother’s milk. They are raised with Conservative sensibilities by Conservatives parents and friends. However, these are few in number. Given the fact that there has been a right-ward political shift in the latter half of the twentieth century, most contemporary Conservatives where not born Conservative, but had Conservatism intrude on them. Thus, most Conservatives have story about how they became Conservatives.

I would like to claim that my Conservatism came upon me as a bolt from heaven on the road to Damascus, but my intellectual journey was a little more prosaic. It was the consequence of two books read back-to-back during my junior year in high school: The New Industrial State by John Kenneth Galbraith, and Up From Liberalism by William F. Buckley, Jr.

Galbraith painted a picture of the world dominated by economic elites who controlled the majority of us who could not think clearly for ourselves and bought into the consumerism that kept the elites wealthy. My goodness Americans were foolish enough to by cars with aerodynamically useless tail fins. Americans were helpless or worse  a little dull unless properly supervised by a caring Liberal government, people like Galbraith, whom we could entrust to make decisions on our behalf.

By contrast, Buckley painted a picture of individual autonomy that presumed a self-capacity for decision that Galbraith did not admit. Moreover, Buckley passed along an essential Conservative intuition. In our daily lives, it is by use of the money that we earn that determines the breath of our choices. The more resources we individually control, the freer, in an important sense, we are. Hence, when we are taxed by the government, a that freedom is diminished. This is not to say that taxes are never justified, it is just that when they are applied, the benefit of the taxes must be measured against the constriction of freedom they entail.

Although Buckley’s work was infused with the ideas of Edmund Burke, our Founding Fathers, Alexis De Tocqueville, Frederick Hayek, and Milton Friedman, he himself was not a first-rank theoretician. He was, rather, the clever, erudite, iconoclastic proselytizer of Conservative ideas. In this role, he excelled, founding the National Review, hosting television’s Firing Line, and even running for Mayor of New York to exploit it as a forum for his Conservative ideas and to critique contemporary Liberalism.

On the occasion of Buckley’s death much will be written about his accomplishments and to this I can add little original. However, it is likely that my small experience with Buckley’s prose was duplicated by many in different circumstances with a different set of Buckley’s writings (He was enormously prolific) but ended in the same result: another Conservative. It is a measure of the power of his mind that he could, through the use of words, influence the thoughts of many he would never meet, but who would nonetheless become his intellectual and political progeny.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

The NY Times and the Lack of Intellectual Diversity

February 24th, 2008

Even with the best of intentions, it is difficult to humans to be dispassionate in the evaluation of evidence. We all have internal narratives of how the world works. When presented with evidence that buttresses our ideas, we tend to accept such evidence. When confronted with evidence that challenges or questions our notions, we try to find reasons to dismiss or discount that evidence. This is not necessarily an inherent character flaw. If we entirely bounced between different ideas as new evidence presented itself, we would be all sail and no rudder. Our world view should be responsive to new evidence, but there should be a measure of inertia that allows us to consider new contradictory information as provisional.

One important control on ideas is to have peers, particular with diverse ideas critically examine our conclusions. It is the lack of this intellectual diversity that cost Dan Rather his job at CBS over its story about President George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service. Rather’s  report was  in large measure based on documents that proved to be forgeries. These forgeries were so obvious that once the story ran on the 60 Minutes II news program, bloggers were able to quickly demonstrate that the fonts in the forgeries post-dated the time of the supposed documents, and could be easily re-created with Word and a copy machine. Rather and his compatriots at CBS did not start out to broadcast false information. However, the documents were so in keeping with their beliefs and their desires that normal journalistic skepticism was dispensed with. They just had to be true.

If the politics in the CBS newsroom were not a mono culture, the obvious flaws in the documents would have likely been discovered before CBS embarrassed itself and further diminished its already declining credibility.

One might have hoped that other organizations would have learned from this conspicuous and well-document error, but the NY Times apparently hasn’t.  On February 21, the paper published an article that  implied that Senator John McCain had a sexual relationship with a lobbyist and that this relationship resulted in special favors. A critical examination of the article reveals that no one said that they knew there was a romantic relationship and the principals deny it. Moreover, the most McCain apparently did for the telecommunications lobbyist’s company was to request that the government act on the company’s license application that had already taken twice as long as to consider as normal. Moreover, he explicitly wrote that he was not urging the government to make any particular decision only that it make whatever decision it needed to make in a timely manner. Hardly the stuff that scandals are made of.

Who knows? There may actually be a scandal somewhere in this or any candidate’s past, but if the NY Times had adult supervision it would have waited for more evidence before publishing this as a page 1 story. The story undercuts the NY Times credibility and partially immunizes McCain against similar charges in the future.

Bill Keller, the executive editor of the NY Times and the person who had to give the final OK for publication in the wake of the controversy conceded: “I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision [to publish] with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot.” This suggests the the NY Times newsroom does not even have sufficient population of moderate Democrats and independents to bring intellectual diversity. The “Gray Lady” is apparently not meeting enough people with a variety of ideas and growing a little senile and tone deaf in the process.

Posted in Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

Schechter Poultry

February 17th, 2008

“ We are beginning to wipe out the line that divides the practical from the ideal; and in so doing we are fashioning an instrument of unimagined power for the establishment of a morally better world.” — Franklin D. Roosevelt, Second Inaugural Address, January 20, 1937.

There is a real human story behind the 1935 case of A. L. A. Schechter Poultry v. United States. The United States was in the grips of the Great Depression that despite, and perhaps because of, the active efforts of government refused to yield its grip. The story of the Schechter family is one symbolic part of a re-examination of the history of the Great Depression as told in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes. Her thesis is that despite some salutary economic changes, the Depression lasted far longer than it needed to. Indeed, the Great Depression did not end until the economic stimulus of World War II. Human suffering of these “forgotten men” was the price paid for by the well-intentioned arrogance of those who believed they could manage the economy better from Washington.

The National Recovery Administration was a Depression Era agency that grew out of a conviction that the free markets were the cause of, or at least could not relieve the Great Depression. The NRA set prices and rules that dictated the detailed functioning of the economy. There was an earnest belief that private decisions had caused the Depression and it would require the economic supervision of wise men in the government to reverse it. Nothing empowers low-level administrative functionaries inclined to bullying more than self-righteousness and Schechter family was the unfortunate target.

Three Schechter brothers ran a kosher butcher shop counter to NRA regulations. Historically, the quality of poultry in many kosher butcher shops was ensured by the fact that customers could choose the chickens they wanted slaughtered, and customers invariably tried to select the healthiest and most robust chickens. The NRA wanted to end this practice to create greater uniformity in the poultry industry. However, without this and other more personal services, the Schechters could not compete against larger butcher shops.

The refusal of the Schechter brothers to conform brought the legal weight of the Federal government on the Brooklyn residents and the Schechters took their case to the courts. The case threatened to undermine the Constitutionality of a key symbol of government economic supervision and was taken seriously. The case quickly gained notoriety and the journalistic guns of the New Deal did not hesitate to train their formidable fire on the Schechters. Drew Pearson and Robert Allen were not above exploiting anti-Semitism in criticizing “Joseph [Schechter] and his Brethren” for the refusal to modify their traditional practices to conform to the NRA.

In a landmark case, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against the government. In the Court’s view the legislature had unconstitutionality ceded its power to the executive branch. Further, the regulation of poultry practices in Brooklyn did not amount to the regulation of interstate commerce and was therefore not part of the enumerated powers granted the Federak government. Rulings like this were part of the reason that Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to circumvent the Supreme Court by expanding its membership to allow him to select more justices.

It would be convenient if the message of the case is that the small guy can triumph in the courts even against the Federal government. This message is lost in a dangerous irony. Even after defeating the Roosevelt Administration and his intrusive minions who had attempted to regulate the Schechters out of business, the Schechter brothers continued to faithfully vote for Roosevelt. The Schechters did not link the actions of the NRA to Roosevelt himself. It seems that the sympathy engendered by Roosevelt’s fireside chats trumped even their family’s interest. Roosevelt successfully continued to blame private wealthy individuals for his failure to reverse the country’s economic fortunes.

Posted in Law, Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

Thoughts on the Candidates as the Field Narrows

February 10th, 2008

Democrats have recently been much more aggressive in punishing apostasy on the part of its adherents. Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey was not permitted to speak at the 1992 Democratic National Convention because he planned to deliver a pro-life message. In 2000, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was sufficiently main stream among Democrats that he was their nominee for vice-president. However, because of his continued support of American efforts in Iraq, the MoveOn.org wing of the party made sure he was not re-nominated as a Democratic Senator of Connecticut. Lieberman was returned to the Senate on the strength of his popularity among independents and Republicans. Lieberman is not now permitted to be Democratic superdelegate because of his endorsement of  Senator John McCain for president.

On the Republican side of the aisle, Republicans are on the verge of nominating Senator John McCain who has angered many Republicans for his apostasy on immigration issues, campaign finance restrictions, and lack of support for Bush tax cuts. McCain has moved towards back towards conventional Republican virtues on these issues, save perhaps campaign finance. On the war, McCain support of the war and his critique on strategy now seem prescient. Why is there residual anger among some Conservative Republicans?

The problem is that the same stubbornness that led McCain to say he would rather lose an election than a war and to stay in the race last summer when his candidacy seemed doomed, aggravated fellow Conservatives when they disagreed with McCain. McCain seemed to bask a little too comfortably in the glow of a fawning press who are always happy to devote attention to a Republican in conflict with his party. It is one thing to reluctantly disagree with other Conservatives on the basis of your best judgment and quite another to revel in and nurture a reputation as a maverick at the expense of other Conservatives.

McCain just gave a talk of reconciliation at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference trying to mend differences and he  seems to be slowly gaining more Conservative support. McCain, however, needs more than acquiescence, he needs political energy to win in November. In realty, McCain has for a long time remained true to Conservative principles while in the Senate. When Conservatives compare McCain to the ideal Conservative candidate they may see two lights that are far separated. However, as one moves further to the Left away from these lights toward the darkness occupied by Senators Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, the difference between the two lights disappears and we can perceive only one guiding light in the distance.

One the Democratic side, at this point it seems that both Clinton and Obama have about an equal chance of securing a nomination, though political futures at this point slightly favor Obama. This poses an interesting question about how Republicans should review the race. As the National Review has opined, “say a prayer for Hillary if you want a Republican in the White House, that is.” Her very presence would energize Republicans in opposition. Indeed, it would be tactically best for Republicans if Clinton and Obama competed all the way the the convention. It would be a Republican political wet dream if Obama entered the convention with a majority of elected delegates and if Clinton managed to garner the nomination by using superdelegates, the elected Democratic establishment. This would send a wounded Clinton to the election with half the party angered at what would appear as anti-democratic means used to secure the nomination.

As pleasant as this vision is, for the good of the Republic, even if Obama would be a more formidable candidate, we should pray for his nomination. The policy differences between Obama and Clinton are narrow, but Obama would at least enter office with the good will of most Americans. Clinton would prove to be divisive from the beginning and the country would likely become partisan. This partisanship would not be of the principled kind, but grow out of avid struggle for raw political power.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

A Chance for Democrats to Rid Themselves of the Clintons

February 3rd, 2008

By the time President Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, the whole country and Democrats, in particular, were exhausted and not just a little relieved. On one hand, President Clinton had managed to win two terms as President, something that no Democrat had achieved since President Franklin Roosevelt had managed it. On the other hand, President’s personal behavior and loose political ethics left many Democrats curled up in the showered trying to wash away the stench of the previous Administration.

Moreover, eight years of President Clinton triangulating between himself and Democrats and Republicans in Congress ushered in the first Republican Congress in a generation. In addition, Clinton tacked hard right passing the North American Free Trade Agreement and welfare reform with help of a Republican Congress over the objections of Democrats. It was President Clinton who conceded that the“era of big government is over.”

With peace and prosperity, President Clinton’s Democratic successor, Vice-President Al Gore, should have sailed in the presidency. Instead, anchored with Clintonian embarrassments, Gore lost to then Governor George W. Bush in a squeaker. President Clinton had secured his political success partially at the cost of his party.

Freed from the necessity of schilling for the Clintons after his term ended, many were liberated from internal partisan shackles to speak out against Clinton. On February 26, 2001, Bob Herbert, a Liberal pundit for the New York Times, wrote:

“Bill Clinton has been a disaster for the Democratic Party. Send him packing… You can’t lead a nation if you are ashamed of the leadership of your party. The Clintons are a terminally unethical and vulgar couple, and they have betrayed everyone who has ever believed in them.”

It has now been eight years since a Democratic president, and Democrats are hungry for another victory. With Republican weakness born of the Iraq War, Democrats smell victory. This explains the Faustian bargain entered by Democrats who are willing to settle for Senator Hillary Clinton because the Clintons have proven themselves winners in the past and wield an aura of invincibility. Many have made this choice despite the fact that even Democrats recognize her flaws. She has all the ambition of her husband, with little of the charm. Moreover, if elected she is likely to prove a divisive leader.

However, the entrance of Senator Barrak Obama in the race has offered a third choice. Although Obama is relatively inexperienced on the national scene, he has a charismatic appeal with a compelling life story. With Senator Obama, some Democrats have decided that there is someone else that can bring them to electoral victory; someone that Democrats do not have to be embarrassed about.

The choice for Democratic nominee in 2008 has not yet been made and Senator Clinton, backed by the Clinton political machine, remains the probable nominee. Nonetheless, Senator Obama’s popularity, particularly among young people, reveals a distaste for the Clintons usually concealed out of political necessity.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

51 Via Margutta

January 27th, 2008

Old movies are new to people who have viewed them for the first time only recently. On the recommendation of friends, I recently saw the movie Roman Holiday when it was broadcast on the Turner Classic Movies network. There were three stars in the movie: Gregory Peck, Audrey Hepburn, and the city of Rome. The well-known plot focuses around Princess Ann (played by Hepburn) from an unnamed country who gets lost one night in Rome and literally falls under the protection of a newspaper reporter, Joe Bradley (played by Peck). Princess Ann does not wish to reveal her status and Joe Bradley tries to conceal his occupation because he needs to secure an exclusive story about the princess. They spend a day experiencing Rome and love intervenes.

In the last six months, I have had the opportunity to visit Rome a couple of times, seeing many of the eternal sites of Rome that appear in the movie. During this last visit, I thought it would be interesting to explore the quiet residential area near the Spanish Steps to find 51 Via Margutta where the fictional reporter Joe Bradley lived in the movie.

Below are a few pictures from a short visit to 51 Via Margutta:


Street sign.



Yours truly in front on the entrance to 51 via Margutta.
When some residents of 51 via Margutta showed up, I asked in poor, broken Italian where Gregory Peck was. The question was sufficient to persuade them to let me and my friends into the 51 via Margutta court yard. This was probably a unique concession to winter visitors. There are probably too many interested people in the summer to be so kind. Below are the steps covered with a viney overhang leading to Joe Bradley’s apartment.




Steps to Joe Bradley’s apartment.
The balcony below was featured in the film when Joe Bradley’s landlord looked askance from it as Joe Bradley loaned money to Princess Ann as she left Bradley’s apartment.




Balcony
Rome is a beautiful city with many sites. This small little corner on via Margutta is one that I will remember because of the hospitality of few Romans.

Posted in Social Commentary | No Comments »

Romney or McCain?

January 13th, 2008

The National Review has adopted a unassailably reasonable criterion for deciding whom to endorse for President each election cycle. They select the most Conservative candidate that has a reasonable prospect of election. Even within criterion, there remains considerable room for disagreement. The National Review decided to endorse Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination.

At this point there are four Republican candidates with reasonable prospect of receiving the Republican nomination: Governor Mike Huckabee, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senator John McCain, and Governor Mitt Romney.

Governor Huckabee can be dismissed as populist whose message is a distortion of Conservatism. He may be pro-Life and pro-Second Amendment Huckabee, but he employs the same class warfare rhetoric as Democrats and has a feel good foreign policy that is eerily reminiscent of President Jimmy Carter’s. Huckabee has managed to use an avuncular personality and genuine concern about others to win the Iowa caucus and improve in national poll results. However, his strategy is very unlikely to prevail against Democrats in the fall. They and their friends in the press will effectively ridicule Huckabee’s religious beliefs. Moreover, Huckabee does not represent a clear choice against Democrats. To corrupt a phrase from President Truman, when given a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat, the people will always choose the Democrat.

At one point last year, Mayor Giuliani was leading in national polls and it even looked possible that he might defeat prominent Democratic candidates. He is socially Liberal, but had agreed to appoint judges to the Federal Judiciary who adhere to an Originalist interpretation of the law and Constitution. Given this ability to actually win, Conservatives could reasonably overlook some of Giuliani’s positions, and support him for President. However, it presently appears that Giuliani has not caught on with the public. There is no longer the tradeoff between likelihood of winning and being less Conservative that works in Giuliani his favor. Moreover, if he runs against Senator Hillary Clinton, the two New Yorkers will go after each other with a venom that will rightfully sour the general public.

This leaves Romney and McCain to choose from. Romney has the advantage of being a Washington outsider and the aura of competence. He is a policy wonk of the first order and has the ability to explain his policies clearly and succinctly. Whatever, his more Liberal positions were in the past, he seems to have come to the correct Conservative ones now. It is likely that between Romney and McCain, Romney’s executive experience would make a more effective manager than McCain.

However, Romney does not seem to have connected emotionally with the public. His very smoothness and impeccable grooming and the fact that he never gets ruffled separates him from voters. Conservative writer Jonah Goldberg compared Romney to a BMW salesman. If Romney runs against Clinton, they would both have an “authenticity” problem. If he runs Senator Barack Obama, he will be at a significant disadvantage. In a choice between candidates of competence or excitement, the exciting candidate usually wins.

McCain has frustrated Conservatives more than once and he is likely to so if elected President. He sponsored “McCain-Feingold” campaign finance “reform” which many Conservatives and Libertarians consider an affront to the First Amendment. McCain opposed George Bush’s tax cuts which accounted for much of the recovery over the last four years. McCain, along with President Bush, supported “amnesty” for illegal aliens before there was any meaningful success in stemming the flow of such people to the US.

However, on the seminal issue of our time, the War on Terror, McCain has struck a perfect tone. He supported the liberation of Iraq. Before most others including President Bush, he recognized that the US needed a more aggressive strategy against Al Qaeda insurgents. He supported Bush’s surge policy when few others would. McCain’s popularity with independents atrophied as a consequence. In response, McCain said that “I would rather lose a campaign than a war.” Now that the surge has proved successful, McCain looks both wise and principled. McCain is now re-gaining much of his support among independents.

It is interesting to contemplate a McCain-Lieberman ticket. McCain could then seize the mantel of bi-partisanship and rise above conventional politics. The move would anger some Republicans which would put Democrat Lieberman one step away from the Presidency with an elderly president in office. In equal measure, it would frighten partisan Democrats who would find it difficult to attack their own previous vice-presidential candidate. This ticket will not happen, but it does make for interesting speculation.

Finally, McCain has moral seriousness that no other candidate can manage. He suffered as a POW without loosing his dignity. It is impossible to tell whether his POW experience developed or simply revealed McCain’s courage, but he certainly has it.

McCain is not the perfect candidate. Indeed, the much loved Reagan did not seem to be a perfect candidate when running in 1980, but at this point, McCain is the best bet for both Republicans and the country.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

Too Happy About Iowa

January 6th, 2008

Perhaps the most definitive and amusing conclusion we can draw from the recent caucus results from Iowa is that Chuck Norris and Oprah Winfrey are the king makers in the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively. Norris endorsed former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination, Winfrey endorsed Senator Barak Obama, and both endorsed candidates won their party Iowa caucuses.

Humor aside, Republicans are far too sanguine about the results from Iowa. The guilty pleasure of watching Hillary Clinton come in not second but third in Iowa masked the fact that results probably reduced the chances of the Republicans winning the presidency in November.

(1) Despite Republicans being constantly beaten by Bill Clinton’s machine in elections, Hillary Clinton carries much of the Clinton baggage without Bill’s consummate political skills. Bill knew how to work a crowd and pulled energy from retail politics. For Hillary, such politics is an enervating grind. Bill had a musical temperament and could modulate his voice and hit the proper note. Hillary oscillates between pedantic is shrill. Hillary Clinton would be formidable candidate in a general election, but may be the least difficult candidate for Republicans to beat. Given the Republican glee at the loss in Iowa, she would certainly energize Republicans.

(2) Mike Huckabee does not come from the heart of the Republican party. Although he has hit many traditional Conservative themes, he speaks with populist tone and appeals to and actually encourages class resentment. His foreign policy is animated by the same feel good rhetoric that propelled President Jimmy Carter into the most humiliating foreign policy in memory. Moreover, Huckabee’s religious beliefs particularly his belief in Creationism will be easily ridiculed by the popular press in the general election. Ridicule is the most destructive political force.

The only positive item that came out of the Iowa for Republicans is that the rise of Obama will likely bring out the Clinton nastiness. Clinton may be able inflict more damage on Obama than Republicans could.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »